Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
31 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Star Trek: Attack Wing» Forums » News

Subject: Wave 17 - T'Ong article is up rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Elliot Baker
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk, England
flag msg tools
http://www.startrek.com/article/attack-wing-wave-17-i-k-s-to...

So the T'Ong article is up and it seems they have ported over the 'Time' token from D&D Attack Wing to Star Trek Attack Wing. Three of the upgrades use the new token.

The Time Token acts like a disabled token, but instead of requiring an action to remove it, it is removed in the end phase of each round. The torps on the T'Ong say they receive 3 time tokens, that effectively puts them out of commission for 3 rounds.

So its solved the problem of spending actions to renable cards...but has not made the cards themselves worth it, still 5 attack dice with one bat to crit conversion, I'd rather take a higher attack ship in general and rely on dice quality actions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob W

Illinois
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
There is also a "generic" crew for the Klingons now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Shaharuddin
United States
California
flag msg tools
The Stasis is Amazing 2 Crew for the Price of one exceeding your crew slots!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert George
United States
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Ebak wrote:
lThe torps on the T'Ong say they receive 3 time tokens, that effectively puts them out of commission for 3 rounds.


2 rounds. The first token is taken off that same turn during the end phase.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Three tokens seems a bit long. I'd still probably take the disable version in many cases, though with the T'Ong itself, I think you'd probably be using it primarily as a rear arc weapon, so the time won't come into play as much.

For comparison, in D&D the breath weapons are also 3 duration tokens (2 rounds of downtime), but they are an AoE attack. The torpedoes seem more like 2 time tokens would be appropriate.

Wasn't expecting these to start so soon. Guess we'll see the Thunderchild sooner, rather than later.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Hare
msg tools
Well, nice to know Klingons won't be relevant any time soon. I'm still waiting on a Haakona or Scimitar quality expansion. Now I will wait and hope on the Rotarran.

Though to be fair, the ship text is solid with the number of 5 hull / 5PAV ships ships that are common use. Looking at you Scimitar and sovereigns.

K'temoc and his ability to discount all Klingon upgrades is pretty useless to me. Though he would have made an impressive Fed or Dom captain.

The rest is really meh to me.



Good news for the timer mechanics. Though I'm with everyone that thinks 2 would have been good.

Turn1: fire, spend TL de cloak, and add 3 timers.
Turn2: re cloak. End turn be removing 2nd to last timer. One left.
Turn3: get new TL. End turn by removing last timer.
Turn4: sensor echo for arc, fire, repeat turn 1.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Coon
United States
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
yourmonkey06 wrote:
Three tokens seems a bit long. I'd still probably take the disable version in many cases, though with the T'Ong itself, I think you'd probably be using it primarily as a rear arc weapon, so the time won't come into play as much.

For comparison, in D&D the breath weapons are also 3 duration tokens (2 rounds of downtime), but they are an AoE attack. The torpedoes seem more like 2 time tokens would be appropriate.

Wasn't expecting these to start so soon. Guess we'll see the Thunderchild sooner, rather than later.


Yeah, I don't think the this Time Token mechanic makes sense for STAW at all- at least not on things like secondary weapons. With regards to Photon Torpedoes, if they were used rarely before and seen as generally too action intensive, my sense is the Time Token mechanic will be the death knell for Photon Torpedoes from here on out. With a use only once every 4th turn, there's zero practical reason to take these kinds of Photons.

The time mechanic makes sense for some of the attacks and defenses in DnD Attack Wing because of their line or area of effect attack or because of significantly higher dice or penetrating effects or other powerful side effects that justify that they aren't usable as often.

This is just not the case with most secondary weapons in STAW, most of which provide a marginal increase on attack die value at the expense of requiring a target lock to fire and subsequently a disable removal and another target lock.

The action economy of Time Tokens is even worse than the already poor action economy of current Photons (Assuming you don't have free actions).

Currently- Turn 1- Target lock, Disable, Fire
Turn 2- Action to remove Disable or Action to reacquire Target Lock
Turn 3- Action to remove Disable or Action to reacquire Target Lock, Fire

Time Tokens - Turn 1- Target lock, Fire, place 3 Time Tokens, Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 2- Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 3- Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 4- Target Lock, Fire

It just seems strange to me to make a weapon that is already not particularly powerful even less desirable.

Time Tokens seem fine for the Cryogenic Pods- they're thematic and could be for other time travelling things.

But, otherwise this feels like poorly grafting a mechanic from DnDAW on to STAW- a mechanic that makes sense for the former and not for the latter and for....what reason?. Honestly, my very first reaction to reading these on the secondary weapons here was that the writing department must really be overworked and confused DnD and STAW.



Anyway, aside from these issues, I do really like everything else in the pack. K'Temoc will be fun as will the T'Ong itself. K'Temoc could be hilarious with Officer Exchange program on another Faction ship. Or wicked fun with Indy Klingon Fleet Captain.

Wish K'ehleyr had no faction penalty for Fed ships- She was a Federation Ambassador to the Klingon Empire not the other way around.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I'm still waiting on a Haakona or Scimitar quality expansion.


Look again when its the Thunderchild preview. cool

Quote:
Yeah, I don't think the this Time Token mechanic makes sense for STAW at all- at least not on things like secondary weapons. With regards to Photon Torpedoes, if they were used rarely before and seen as generally too action intensive, my sense is the Time Token mechanic will be the death knell for Photon Torpedoes from here on out. With a use only once every 4th turn, there's zero practical reason to take these kinds of Photons.


Depends on what you're using them for. For a ship that will typically have a 5 die attack like the T'Ong, I'd guess you'd probably only use it when firing out your rear arc. That's probably something that won't happen every turn, so it'll just be ready when you want it without you having to spend an action.

But if you prefer the old ones, there's nothing stopping you from using them. Klingons do have a 5-die BS to crit torpedo upgrade already.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zinvictus wrote:
The action economy of Time Tokens is even worse than the already poor action economy of current Photons (Assuming you don't have free actions).

Currently- Turn 1- Target lock, Disable, Fire
Turn 2- Action to remove Disable or Action to reacquire Target Lock
Turn 3- Action to remove Disable or Action to reacquire Target Lock, Fire

Time Tokens - Turn 1- Target lock, Fire, place 3 Time Tokens, Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 2- Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 3- Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 4- Target Lock, Fire



How is two actions over four turns worse action economy than three actions over three turns?

The problem with giving them 2 time tokens is that they would have been strictly better than the old version on a ship without free actions, but this seems like a reasonable middle ground.

You can fire photons during the first round that you're in range, and by the time they're back online you're probably ready to fire them from your rear arc. In the intervening two turns you've been attacking with your primary and using your actions to improve your dice quality instead of using them just to get your photons back online.

It's no Scimitar/Haakona, true, but I'm pretty pleased with this ship. This actually seems like a recurring pattern with the Klingons: with both Chang's bird and the Ning'tao, people saw the preview and were like "pfft, this sucks," but after a month or two of play realized that although it might not be revolutionary, it's still really cool.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boardgame Geek
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Cool another preview.

The ship is alright, nothing too crazy but against a ship fitted with Flagship or another Hull buffing card this isn't too terrible.

K'Temoc is pretty decent in his ability to reduce Klingon upgrade costs so putting him on a bigger ship seems alright to make the most of it.

Morag is okay, not sure he will see much use but that being said he might be alright for a swarm build.

Devotion to Duty is bizarre since it requires you to have taken hull damage to work and spend an action.

Tactical Officer is pretty cool and could be useful on the Gr'oth or Somraw.

K'Ehleyr could be a fun card in casual play mainly because of her point cost, seems like she could be decent for playing any of the multi-turn missions.

Concussive Charges & Photon Torpedoes, nothing much to say except TIME TOKENS, interesting addition but 3 time tokens might be 1 too many as far as I'm concerned; these might require actual testing to see which one is more efficient.

Cryogenic Stasis is definitely a casual card that I think would be fun in a custom campaign; maybe one of the missions has you coming across a ship that has this upgrade and two random Klingons under it which get added to your fleet once you unfreeze them during that game for future campaign play, a fun idea anyway; otherwise I don't really see this cards actual use due to eating up those actions but who knows -- One thought is that you could put two 4 or less cost crew from another faction which would add up to 5 each for the faction penalty and then get them "eventually" on your ship at 5 less cost as a result... Again I'm not sure you want to spend that many actions.


All in all pretty cool so I'll be grabbing one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Coon
United States
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
kobold47 wrote:
Zinvictus wrote:
The action economy of Time Tokens is even worse than the already poor action economy of current Photons (Assuming you don't have free actions).

Currently- Turn 1- Target lock, Disable, Fire
Turn 2- Action to remove Disable or Action to reacquire Target Lock
Turn 3- Action to remove Disable or Action to reacquire Target Lock, Fire

Time Tokens - Turn 1- Target lock, Fire, place 3 Time Tokens, Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 2- Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 3- Remove 1 Time Token
Turn 4- Target Lock, Fire



How is two actions over four turns worse action economy than three actions over three turns?

The problem with giving them 2 time tokens is that they would have been strictly better than the old version on a ship without free actions, but this seems like a reasonable middle ground.

You can fire photons during the first round that you're in range, and by the time they're back online you're probably ready to fire them from your rear arc. In the intervening two turns you've been attacking with your primary and using your actions to improve your dice quality instead of using them just to get your photons back online.

It's no Scimitar/Haakona, true, but I'm pretty pleased with this ship. This actually seems like a recurring pattern with the Klingons: with both Chang's bird and the Ning'tao, people saw the preview and were like "pfft, this sucks," but after a month or two of play realized that although it might not be revolutionary, it's still really cool.


I suppose action economy wasn't the right phrasing to use. Turn economy would probably be more accurate. It's true that theoretically the TTTs (Time Token Torps) improve your action economy in the sense that for 2 intervening turns your action choices aren't determined by the need to get the torpedoes back online.

But if it comes down to making a build around Photon Torpedoes you're going to want to be able to fire them more than every 4th turn. Especially when the Photons (or other Torpedoes, assuming this will happen to other weapons) are often taken for ships with lower PWV such as the Defiant, or Reliant. If you're doing this you want that punch back online as quickly as possible- I don't think it's any coincidence that many Torpedo builds use Lojur, Mr. Spock, or other cards that reduce the time to get those weapons turned around quickly. In terms of being able to fire your torpedoes once and then again, weapons that take 3 turns minimum to fire again (before adding mitigating cards) are flat better than ones that take 4 turns (and which can't be sped up). And when both are the same SP cost, I just don't see the TTTs as worthwhile over the old standard.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Waspinator
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Disrupter Beams are waaaaaay better than these torps,
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zinvictus wrote:
Especially when the Photons (or other Torpedoes, assuming this will happen to other weapons) are often taken for ships with lower PWV such as the Defiant, or Reliant. If you're doing this you want that punch back online as quickly as possible- I don't think it's any coincidence that many Torpedo builds use Lojur, Mr. Spock, or other cards that reduce the time to get those weapons turned around quickly. In terms of being able to fire your torpedoes once and then again, weapons that take 3 turns minimum to fire again (before adding mitigating cards) are flat better than ones that take 4 turns (and which can't be sped up). And when both are the same SP cost, I just don't see the TTTs as worthwhile over the old standard.


This is an important point. Apart from covering one's rear arc, torpedoes have historically only been good for replacing one's primary entirely. One therefore wanted to have as low a primary as possible (because those points are just going to waste anyways) and good enough action economy to fire them every turn.

(This is, of course, why Klingon torpedoes have been so bad; while regular torpedoes might be able to eke out a marginal point-and-action advantage for their cost, the Klingons are almost always spending five points and a lock for one more attack die)

And while the new torpedoes aren't going to replace the old ones within that particular paradigm, they can be a lot more useful outside it. Consider, for example, the Pagh with TTTs (or TT Concussive Charges) and a Klingon Tactical Officer. That's exactly the sort of ship that the torpedo theme-junkies have been clamoring for, and it's actually fairly viable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D Conklin
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just my :

I think it would have been a better "ported over mechanic" if they tweaked it to allow a combo of the timer and the re-enable.... in other words, you can remove an additional timer token as an Action as though you were taking off a Disabled token.

This would keep the current mechanic (one is taken off 1st round, spend action to take 2 off the second round) but also allow the new mechanic to work.

That said, I am kinda surprised we haven't seen a Resource, call it "Torpedo Crew" or something, that can re-enable 1 torp as a free action or act like Lojour.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nico
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It is still possible that the new mechanic comes with a Rules Card, allowing the removal of a Time Token with an Action. We playtested sth along those lines in March, after having played a few games of D&D Attack Wing, where this is from.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Hare
msg tools
yourmonkey06 wrote:
Quote:
I'm still waiting on a Haakona or Scimitar quality expansion.


Look again when its the Thunderchild preview. cool



I had to look up the Akira class because I wasn't familiar with it on screen. It should honestly be a disappointment. It had average phasers (4PAV) and an absurd amount of torpedo launchers. It also carried an unusually large bay for lots of shuttles and fighters.

4/1/4/4, CWWWT was my guess.


Barring a Federation equivalent to volley of torpedoes coming with the Thunderchild, it shouldn't be too impressive. I think its big sell will be photons, quantums, and tricobalt torps with timers.

And then I can't find anything for the Vrax. So we could possibly already be looking at the exciting ship of the wave with the Tong.

I do realize how dumb that sounds, but it is a really amusing thought.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
It should honestly be a disappointment. It had average phasers (4PAV)


Oh, Enterprise-E (& Prometheus) what have you done to us! I remember when 4 PAV on a Federation ship could never be spoken of as a disappointment (and I was told there was no way a Federation ship would ever have 5).

Anyway, I don't think it will replicate the Nebula stat-line since the Phoenix is coming out in the very next wave, but it was so hard to make out in that image I just don't know! Doesn't help either that there's a bit of a cluster of Federation ships around that same value; smaller than the Enterprise-D, but more advanced than the Excelsior. Nebulas, Akiras, Ambassadors... and they gave themselves no room by making the Excelsior 3/1/5/4 next to the D's 4/1/5/4.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan M
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
kobold47 wrote:
(This is, of course, why Klingon torpedoes have been so bad; while regular torpedoes might be able to eke out a marginal point-and-action advantage for their cost, the Klingons are almost always spending five points and a lock for one more attack die)

And while the new torpedoes aren't going to replace the old ones within that particular paradigm, they can be a lot more useful outside it. Consider, for example, the Pagh with TTTs (or TT Concussive Charges) and a Klingon Tactical Officer. That's exactly the sort of ship that the torpedo theme-junkies have been clamoring for, and it's actually fairly viable.


The only real use for Klingon torpedoes has, in the past, been Chang's bird of prey. I generally spend 6 SP for 2 4-dice torpedoes. I'd be inclined to spend 10 points for two of these on that ship.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Hare
msg tools
yourmonkey06 wrote:
Quote:
It should honestly be a disappointment. It had average phasers (4PAV)


Oh, Enterprise-E (& Prometheus) what have you done to us! I remember when 4 PAV on a Federation ship could never be spoken of as a disappointment (and I was told there was no way a Federation ship would ever have 5).


What? I've been wrong on guesses before. It could have a 4PAV and a fantastic ship text and dial. That would not be a dissapointment. I think most people will be dissapointed because the text will likely be torpedo oriented and not see much use.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Was just commenting on the characterization of a 4 PAV Fed ship as average. Doesn't feel like *too* long ago that that was their best.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse Catron
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
yourmonkey06 wrote:
Was just commenting on the characterization of a 4 PAV Fed ship as average. Doesn't feel like *too* long ago that that was their best.


Yeah...remember back when giving the Defiant more than 3 attack was too strong balance wise
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Landy
Canada
Winnipeg
Manitoba
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry but the Romulan Tactical Officer puts this one to shame.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
drktron wrote:
yourmonkey06 wrote:
Was just commenting on the characterization of a 4 PAV Fed ship as average. Doesn't feel like *too* long ago that that was their best.


Yeah...remember back when giving the Defiant more than 3 attack was too strong balance wise


No, because that's false and nobody ever said that.

Here, for the record, is what Andrew did say about the Defiant. There was indeed a point during playtests when it was dominating, but he didn't say what its stats were, or whether it ever had a 4 attack or higher. In fact, given that he said we'd "barely even remember" its primary weapon, there's reason to assume that it was something else that needed nerfing; maybe it had 3 agility and/or 4 hull, which would have actually been quite powerful as of Wave 1, unlike this unsubstantiated "more than 3 attack" claim that you keep making.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Hare
msg tools
yourmonkey06 wrote:
Was just commenting on the characterization of a 4 PAV Fed ship as average. Doesn't feel like *too* long ago that that was their best.


...back In my day, the Klingons were good, Feds had 1 4PAV ship, Dominion didn't have an elite talent, and Romulans didn't have cloaked mines.

Nonetheless, you are right. That 4PAV, 3 die range 2 360 Enterprise-Dwas a workhorse. The 4PAV Sutherland was a huge deal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse Catron
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kobold47 wrote:
drktron wrote:
yourmonkey06 wrote:
Was just commenting on the characterization of a 4 PAV Fed ship as average. Doesn't feel like *too* long ago that that was their best.


Yeah...remember back when giving the Defiant more than 3 attack was too strong balance wise


No, because that's false and nobody ever said that.

Here, for the record, is what Andrew did say about the Defiant. There was indeed a point during playtests when it was dominating, but he didn't say what its stats were, or whether it ever had a 4 attack or higher. In fact, given that he said we'd "barely even remember" its primary weapon, there's reason to assume that it was something else that needed nerfing; maybe it had 3 agility and/or 4 hull, which would have actually been quite powerful as of Wave 1, unlike this unsubstantiated "more than 3 attack" claim that you keep making.


Apart from covering one's rear arc, torpedoes have historically only been good for replacing one's primary entirely. One therefore wanted to have as low a primary as possible (because those points are just going to waste anyways) and good enough action economy to fire them every turn.




Perhaps I misremembered, thanks for setting the record straight in such a friendly way.

Since it seems to have been designed as a torpedo boat so that we will barely even remember its primary weapon and since, like you said, you want as low a primary as possible in a torpedo ship, its likely Mr. Parks actually RAISED its primary weapon to 3 to make it less powerful and more balanced. Lol

The real purpose I was getting at was that ships have become more powerful as this game has progressed, ie there is some amount of power creep present. The increase in Fed Attack values was being discussed.
Thanks for substantiating that idea by rightly pointing out that agility 3 and/or hull 4 would be quite powerful in wave 1 vs now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.